Allowed

Sadakat Ali v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022A227/180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case addresses a writ petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside orders rejecting an application under Section 156(3) CrPC regarding the death of the petitioner's sister. The High Court held that relying solely on children's statements without medical corroboration was unjustified and directed a fresh reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 04.10.2021 and 12.07.2021 set aside; lower court directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application again.

Sadakat Ali Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 180 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sadakat Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Session Judge, Rampur in Revision No.96 of 2021, Registered No.96 of 2021 (Sadakat Ali Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Misc. Application No.170/2021, Registration No.511/ 2021, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur.

¶7

As per facts of the case, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner in the court of C.J.M. Rampur, which is appended at page-'32' of the paper book. According to which, the petitioner made allegations against the husband and family members of his sister Farzana and it is alleged that all the in-laws of Farzana including her husband were not happy with the dowry given in the marriage and they used to physically harass Farzana for this reason only. On 17.10.2021 the accused persons committed murder of the sister of petitioner. On the request of the petitioner, the postmortem of the deceased was done. When the petitioner went to the police station his report was not lodged. First, he moved an application before the S.S.P. concerned and as last resort this application 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved.

¶8

This application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the C.J.M. concerned on the ground that an enquiry was done wherein the statements of three children of the deceased and the doctor, who conducted the postmortem were recorded and the inquiry officer reported that the deceased was suffering from ailments and was getting treatment from different doctors and one week prior to the death she was slipped in her house and sustained head injury. The death is found to be caused by the ailments. The Chief Judicial Magistrate opined that all the three children have also stated the fact that their mother was suffering from ailments since long and one week prior to her death she

¶9

slipped in the bathroom and sustained head injury. No one has committed the murder of their mother. Thus, on the report of police station based on the statements of the children of the deceased and doctor etc., the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was rejected.

¶10

Against this order revision was filed, which was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur on the same ground.

¶11

If we go through the instructions received from the police station concerned through A.G.A. the same facts are mentioned therein but the postmortem report is on record, according to which, the death was caused due to anti mortem head injury and it is alleged that this injury was sustained by the deceased by slipping down in the bathroom one week prior to this death but no medical report of this injury received after slipping down in the bathroom has been produced before the court below or this Court. If the death is said to have caused by this injury then there must be some medical report of this injury. Medical must be done just after the incident of slipping but there is no such medical report on record. All the children on the basis of whose statements the orders have been passed by the court concerned are living with their father.

¶12

In my opinion, the order passed outrightly on the basis of the statement of the children cannot be said to be justified. As the offence is of death of the sister of the petitioner, which is a cognizable offence, hence, it was incumbent upon the court below to order to register an F.I.R. as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) SCC 1.

¶13

Hence, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 04.10.2021 and 12.07.2021 are set aside.

¶14

The lower court is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner again.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.2.2022 Radhika

¶16

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.02.25 15:14:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sadakat Ali v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadakat Ali v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dushyant Chauhan Vs Harish Chandra

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Milan Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sweta Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jagdish Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Brij Kishor Tiwari Vs Manik Lal Pal and 2 Others